State v. Oberst
847 N.W.2d 892
Wis. Ct. App.2014Background
- July 8 and July 29, 2011: Kenosha police attached and later replaced a GPS device on Scott Oberst’s car while it was parked in a public lot; GPS data led to drug charges.
- Oberst was charged in early August 2011; while his case was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Jones (Jan. 23, 2012), holding that installing a GPS device on a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant.
- Oberst moved to suppress evidence derived from the GPS device as the installation violated Jones.
- The trial court found the installation was unconstitutional under Jones but denied suppression because officers reasonably relied on existing binding Wisconsin precedent (State v. Sveum) permitting warrantless GPS tracking.
- Oberst pleaded guilty to two counts and appealed the suppression-denial issue.
- The court of appeals reviewed de novo whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule barred suppression and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Oberst) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence from warrantless GPS installation must be suppressed after Jones | GPS installation was unconstitutional under Jones, so derivative evidence must be excluded | Officers reasonably relied on pre-Jones binding precedent permitting warrantless GPS placement; exclusion is inappropriate | Held: No suppression — good faith exception applies |
| Whether Griffith retroactivity requires exclusion | Griffith mandates retroactive application of Jones, so suppression is required | Griffith’s retroactivity is distinct from suppression remedy; exclusion only serves deterrence and is inappropriate when officers relied on binding precedent | Held: Griffith does not compel suppression here |
| Whether officers’ reliance on Sveum was objectively reasonable | N/A (implicit: reliance insufficient to excuse violation) | Reliance was objectively reasonable because Sveum clearly permitted warrantless GPS attachment | Held: Reliance was objectively reasonable; good faith exception applies |
| Whether suppression would meaningfully deter police misconduct in these circumstances | Suppression would deter future violations | Suppression would not deter where officers acted pursuant to settled precedent and would impose substantial social costs | Held: Exclusion would not advance deterrence; therefore not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (installation of a GPS device on a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (exclusionary rule does not apply when officers act in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new constitutional rules are applied retroactively on collateral review)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits automobile searches incident to arrest; discussed in Davis as example of precedent-overturning decision)